Keep in mind that I can only speak from my own perspective; I could not, and would not want to speak for anyone else on our school board.
- Dave Hutchinson, State College (PA) Area school board
Election
Post-mortem
I am old enough to remember Richard Nixon winning re-election in 1972 by a landslide. I also remember, three years later and following impeachment, being unable to find anyone willing to admit to having voted for him. As an electorate, we are quick to blame politicians when they fail to measure up, but we are rather slow to acknowledge that we are in any way responsible for having elected them to office in the first place! As I say on my “politics” page, “the beauty and curse of living in a democracy is that we have no one to blame but ourselves.” Or, as Pogo used to say, “we have met the enemy, and he is us.”
In that light, the May 15th sweep by the challengers in the school board primary elections was widely seen - probably correctly - as a referendum on the proposed high school renovation project. In a democracy, the public ultimately gets to decide. But has it chosen wisely? Has it fully considered the consequences of its decision? Will, in fact, the voters get what they think they asked for?
Most of the support for the challengers appeared to fall into two camps: 1) those who didn’t want to spend that much money, and 2) those who were opposed to the idea of a “mega-school”.
Let’s consider those who thought they were voting to save money. Did they realize that $5.1 million had already been invested in development and design for the proposed project?
(As an aside, we are already hearing the argument that “we told you not to spend the money”. Besides the fact that “we told you not to do it” is hardly a legitimate argument for doing or not doing anything -and I have yet to hear a legitimate argument- it is besides the point. Every decision has to be made in the present tense, with the information that is available at that moment. Part of the information that was available to those who voted to “stop the project” was the following: over $5 million of their money had already been spent.)
In addition, it will take another 3-4 years to develop a new project because the challengers have promised to redo the district-wide master plan and build a community consensus before doing anything about the high school facility. This will be no easy task because the people opposed to this project came from very divergent points of view: those who want a new school, those who want to renovate the current facility, and those who want multiple, smaller schools.
However, even a minimalist renovation project of say $70 million, in three years would cost an additional $18 million, at the current construction inflationary rate of 8%. This number does not include the impact on the cost of delaying renovations to the remaining elementary schools, nor the cost of continuing to maintain the current 50-year old facility for several more years. If any significant renovation of the high school facility can be completed for less than the $104-107 million that the proposed project would have cost, I will eat my Giants’ cap. :-)
Furthermore, those who want to spend as little as possible are apparently willing to live, for the next 40-50 years, with a campus design consisting of two buildings separated by two large parking lots and a main thoroughfare. This configuration makes it very difficult to address school security issues caused by the challenge of controlling building access as students enter and exit nearly a dozen building exits while crossing the street several times each day for classes; nor does it allow us to address traffic congestion caused by every bus having to stop on both sides of the street twice per day. When one considers how large an issue that school security has become in recent years, to me, this option now seems unthinkable.
Now, for the smaller school proponents. This is more difficult to address, because it is a complex issue, over-simplified by the inflammatory use of the “mega-school” rhetoric, which in turn was part of a sophisticated campaign to promote fear and characterized by statements such as, “when you put that many kids in one school it’s going to be dangerous” and multiple references to “Columbine”. The fact that there is no relationship between school size and school violence was not important to them, nor relevant to their mission.
First, many of those who would prefer smaller high schools probably don’t realize that in order to achieve an educationally sound “small” scale, the research overwhelmingly suggests that we would need at least three schools, with a maximum enrollment of 900 students in each school. (150 students per grade level is about the limit at which it is possible for every student to know every other student personally.) One consequence of multiple, small high schools is that either:
1) our technical (CTC) students would no longer have direct access to our college prep curriculum, and vice-versa. (This is one of the strongest benefits of our current alignment, one that few schools have), or
2) we would have a duplication of curriculum and facilities that would be prohibitively expensive to build and maintain.
Will the next school board be able to convince the community to spend the money to duplicate all those advanced placement courses, or will student choice be limited according to which high school they attend? Will the community spend the money to build three separate CTC programs (not likely), or will our future technical students be isolated from the rest of the student population – and will our future college prep students be isolated from the CTC students? Is a duplication of the music and theatre programs even possible?
It is accurate to say that we currently have one of the largest high schools in Pennsylvania. (We do not have “two small high schools”, as has been bizarrely claimed; we have one high school inconveniently located in two buildings!) Because of the relative safety and affluence of our community, we do not have some of the challenges associated with large, urban schools. In addition, some of the best schools in Pennsylvania are large, comprehensive schools similar to ours.
However, there are legitimate concerns associated with larger high schools - anonymity and the lack of attachment to school were the issues that caused me to run for school board in the first place – but there are other ways to address them. Over the past six years, hundreds of educational professionals and community members have spent thousands of hours to develop the Small Schools Initiative, the most significant aspects of which are 1) the deliberate connection of each to student to at least one faculty member through mentoring, and 2) opportunities to encourage student “voice” and engagement through the small group seminar. Ironically, the same people who were behind “stop the project” are also fighting to stop the very initiative that was designed to address this issue. Why not give it a chance to work?
As for the “new school” option, it should be noted that opposition to this project began when the current school board was unwilling to spend an additional $25 million in order to build a new high school on a new site out on Whitehall Road, as requested by a current member of Penn State’s board of trustees. (Note: he clearly wanted a “mega-school”, but I don’t recall him using that terminology at the time.)
What am I saying? If democracy is to fulfill its promise, if "we, the people" are going to get the government that we want, voters will need to begin to understand the consequences of their choices, and accept responsibility for them. Can we do that in State College?
A fundamental Question to be faced by both citizens and their elected representatives: do elected officials represent all citizens, or just their particular constituency?
This leads to another question, from the citizen’s point of view - what characteristics do we value in our representatives? By what criteria do we evaluate them? Do we vote primarily because we agree with their positions on issues, or – and this is an interesting idea – for the candidate’s governing skills?
-because they have a particular view, or because they can see both sides?
-do we consider open-mindedness a virtue, or evidence of flip-flopping?
Every election cycle we hear complaints about negative campaign ads. I see this as another example of “we have met the enemy, and he is us.” The reason for the abundance of negativity in political campaigns is clear – no political price is paid for it. Negative ads will disappear the day candidates are penalized by voters at the ballot box.
We will have reached a turning point in our political culture when we began to elect representatives who -
- Have demonstrated the ability to build consensus;
- Can see and articulate the complexity of an issue,
- Understand and respect the underlying values that drive people to different conclusions;
- Are willing to admit when they don’t know the answer.
Debate has an appropriate place in a democracy, primarily where the choice is binary; for example, when one has to choose either candidate “A” or candidate “B”. Far more often, the problems that we face and the potential solutions are far too complicated to reduce to an either/or choice, and compromise is not always a possibility.
Using the high school project as an example: there are those who would like us to have two fully functioning high schools. Some people would like to see three or more; others think one school is just fine. What’s the compromise? Obviously, 1.6 schools is not a possibility.
Another approach, which unfortunately has become increasingly common, is “winner-take-all”. This philosophy is based on the mistaken view of our political system – and life, for that matter - as a competition. That is, “whoever gets the most votes wins”, and by extension, everyone else loses. This thinking, however, directly contradicts one of the basic premises of American democracy: the protection of the rights of the minority.
A key means of protecting these rights is to work towards finding “common ground”, which, in my view, is one of the primary responsibilities of elected officials. To do this, we have to work towards discovering the underlying values that drive the different viewpoints. That is, why is it important to one individual that we have one school, but another, two? Once you identify the underlying values – some examples might be academic opportunity, sense of community, safety, financial responsibility – you can work towards finding a solution that addresses all those concerns.
The downside, of course, is that in the end, nobody gets everything that they want. For those who view anything short of “winning” as a failure, this is problematic.
.................
More notes: Citizenship Education appears to be an idea whose time has come. Nationally, it is the focus of 100 District Leaders for Civic Engagement and Service-Learning; in Pennsylvania, it is actively promoted by Marjorie Rendell and the PennCord initiative. In State College, “a responsible and involved citizen” is at the top of the list of the qualities of a “successful high school graduate”.
But an essential part of this conversation goes beyond the sometimes dry knowledge of civics and government that has been a staple of education since before I was in school. I am far more interested in the development of citizenship skills - the abilities one needs to effectively and actively participate in a democratic society.
Since 18-year-olds first got the right to vote in 1971, every four years we deplore the lack of participation by our youngest citizens in the political process. Over time, I have developed a theory about this: the reason that recent students don't participate in the system is that they don't believe it works. They don't believe it works because they have no experience seeing it work. Most high school graduates have spent the last 12 years being told what to do, with few opportunities to affect the environment in which they spend most of their time. As a society we are missing our best opportunity to give students an experience in democratic shared decision-making over issues that effect them directly.
What
are citizenship skills? Some examples:
- the ability to understand
another point of view
- how to “lobby” by framing an
issue in a context consistent with the values of the decision makers
- coming up with solutions
that help to solve the other person’s problem
- critical thinking skills
Although the ability to recognize when point B actually follows from point A is important, critical thinking involves more than being able to think logically. The idea that everyone is entitled to their own opinion is so grounded in our culture that it seems almost un-American to question how a person arrives at what they believe. In fact, it has become acceptable to start from a conclusion and work backwards, looking only for the arguments and facts that support that conclusion. The competition of “winning” an argument has become more important than finding the truth. As the current adventure in Iraq attests, this can have substantial consequences.
An important characteristic often lacking in otherwise intelligent people is the ability to critique one’s own beliefs. It is far more important to seek out and hear the ideas that challenge your position than it is to hear that which reinforces what you already believe to be true. If I don’t have a good answer for George Will’s argument, it’s just possible that he’s right.
In a way, the current movement towards citizenship education is a return to the roots of Public Education. In 1749, when Ben Franklin first proposed the creation of a public school in Pennsylvania, it was to the end of "creating citizens who could make wise political decisions." The future of Western civilization may depend on how successful we are in fulfilling Mr. Franklin’s vision. An excellent article from Education Week: Can Political Participation Be Taught?
It has been argued that democracy is a contact sport, and anything short of blood is acceptable in the course of public debate -and it is true that our history as a democracy is filled with examples of people using personal attacks and innuendo to gain political advantage. But the issue is not civility for the sake of civility. There are practical reasons for having a set of agreed-upon ground rules for public engagement.
First, it is important for the community to understand that a lack of civility has consequences. Anyone who spends a lot of time in the public eye has to develop a thick skin, but most normal people - that is, non-politicians - are unwilling to subject themselves to the kind of atmosphere that has been typical at board meetings over the past year. In this environment, fewer voices are heard. Effective public dialogue requires a "safe" space where people feel they can speak freely. Few people – including board members - are able to think as clearly in an atmosphere that is tense and filled with negative energy. Creating an atmosphere conducive to the free and open discussion of ideas, where people feel safe to "think outside the box" benefits everyone.
Second, the time and energy that must be expended to anticipate and respond to an orchestrated plan to disrupt is time and energy that could be put to better use.
Time is not an unlimited resource – it is the rare public meeting that remains effective after three or more hours. It is stating the obvious to say then when people get tired, they can’t think as clearly, and are less inclined, or able, to take on complex issues. The senior citizens to whom I spoke were unanimous in their opinion that these marathon meetings served no useful purpose, and that we were nuts to allow them to drag on that long!
Free speech is a cherished right, but just because you have a right to do something doesn’t mean that it’s necessary, a good idea, or that it’s in the public interest. If everyone did everything they have a “right” to do, society would disintegrate.
· Respectful debate Name calling, ridicule, sarcasm and personal attacks not only are inappropriate but derail the legitimate exchange of opinion. They create divisiveness and defense rather than cohesion and community.
· Accurate facts and information Half truths, inaccuracies and uninformed statements lead to conversations that generate a great deal of heat and very little light. Participants in these dialogs must understand that they bear a responsibility if any common understanding is to emerge.
· Good listening skills Excellent debaters are first and foremost good listeners. The principle of “seek first to understand” provides them with information to ask good questions and clarify their own thinking.
· Effective presentation strategies Students must learn that tone of voice, choice of words and juxtaposition of arguments all contribute to the effectiveness of the message.
If our students are to have any hope of learning citizenship skills, it is clearly essential that they see this behavior modeled by the adults of the community.
The architects of our government envisioned that the media would play an important role in the American democracy. It is not by accident that the first amendment to the Constitution contains the phrase "Congress shall make no law ..abridging the freedom of the press.": they gave protection for the Press the same weight as the freedoms of religion, speech and assembly. But just as citizens are typically more willing to exercise their “rights” than accept the responsibilities of citizenship, the press occasionally forgets that its place of privilege is tied to an obligation towards the welfare of public discourse.
When newspapers, and radio and tv stations were primarily locally owned, the responsibility to act as an arbiter of the public conversation was taken more seriously. I can still remember when prior to an election, Long Island Newsday would not only print the competing statements of candidates, they would also print whether those statements could be verified or how closely they aligned with the facts! In smaller communities such as ours, where the local paper is the only major news source, this is a particularly important public service.
An analogy: if there was a fight on the playground, it would be the job of the cub reporter to report what happened and the order of events. Excellent reporting might try to determine the motivation of the protagonists. Too often, we're lucky if what we get are quotes from both sides. ("He started it." "No, he did.") without any comment as to the truth of either statement. At its worst, the press stands on the sideline and yells, "Fight, fight!" - because that's what sells papers.
Referendum
Feb. 1, 2007: A response to a Jan. 30th posting by Bob Heisse, editor of the CDT, in which he make the case for referendum.(Referendum, reform, and open records)
"Bob, your posting on referendums creates an excellent opportunity to have a conversation about what it means to live in a democracy; in particular, the American democracy.
My response was not posted.
Another thought: were we to decide that a referendum was the best way to determine what the public wants, wouldn’t it be important that our citizens have a basic knowledge of the facts, so that they could make an informed decisions? Unfortunately, in the current climate there is such a wealth of deliberate misinformation, that this is now almost impossible. It’s like having a tainted jury pool.